2019 (9) TMI 1634 - HC - Indian Laws

Provisional attachment orders - factual error in making the recording, as if, a consent has been given when no such consent was given as recorded by the Tribunal - HELD THAT - This Court made a suggestion on the last hearing on 23.09.2019 that the respondents will have to be directed not to alienate or encumber the property sought to be attached. Resultantly, the conditional order passed the Appellate Tribunal would go. The respondents are at liberty to maintain the properties sought to be attached to be used as a pathway. For the aforesaid purpose, they can put temporary shed and make it useful, for which no equity has been claimed. Similarly, for maintaining the road, the expenses incurred cannot be fastened on the appellant. This arrangement would be subject to the disposal of the case pending on the file of the Special Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.74 of 2017. The respondents shall deposit a quantified amount, subject to the decision of the Special Court for the usage of the property. All these arrangements are subject to the result of the adjudication in S.C.No.74 of 2017 by the Special Court, Chennai. The respondents shall pay a sum of ₹ 2 lakhs without prejudice to the contentions in the pending case. These arrangements also subject to the result in S.C.No.74 of 2017 on the file of the Special Court, Chennai. The Special Court, viz.,the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, shall dispose of S.C.No.74 of 2017 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for various acts - PMLA, SAFEMA, FEMA, NDPS, PBPT. Valuation of property for attachment. Error in Tribunal's recording of consent. Maintainability of appeals. Direction on property usage and expenses.

Analysis:
The civil miscellaneous appeals were filed by both parties against a common order by the Appellate Tribunal for PMLA, SAFEMA, FEMA, NDPS, and PBPT acts. The appeals arose from an order confirming provisional attachment orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint No. 635 of 2016. The Appellate Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specific sum to secure the property's value mentioned in the reason to believe. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and provisional attachment. The Additional Solicitor General argued that the Tribunal erred in not considering various factors and the property's higher valuation, while the respondents' counsel contended that the Tribunal made a factual error regarding consent. The Tribunal's recording of consent was disputed by both sides, leading to arguments about the appeals' maintainability and the respondents' status as bona fide purchasers.

The Court suggested that the respondents should not alienate or encumber the attached property and could use it as a pathway, subject to maintaining it at their own cost. Any temporary structures or expenses incurred for the property's usage would also be the respondents' responsibility. The respondents were directed to deposit a specific amount for property usage pending the decision in a related case before the Special Court in Chennai. The Court agreed upon arrangements regarding property usage, expenses, and deposit, all subject to the Special Court's decision in the related case.

The Court clarified that all issues were left open for the Special Court to decide, directing the Special Court to dispose of the related case within six months. The common order of the Appellate Tribunal was modified accordingly, prohibiting the respondents from alienating or encumbering the property and modifying the conditions imposed by the Tribunal. The appeals were disposed of with no costs involved.